TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petitioner granted anticipatory bail with cooperation conditions. ABLAPL disposed.</h1> <h3>Prof. Mukti Kanta Mishra Versus Republic Of India (C.B.I.)</h3> Prof. Mukti Kanta Mishra Versus Republic Of India (C.B.I.) - TMI Issues Involved:1. Anticipatory Bail Application2. Allegation of Bribery and Corruption3. Involvement of Petitioner in GST Audit Issues4. Prosecution's Evidence and Arguments5. Petitioner's Defense and Arguments6. Court's Consideration and DecisionDetailed Analysis:1. Anticipatory Bail Application:The petitioner filed an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending arrest in connection with an FIR registered for alleged commission of offenses under sections 7A, 8, and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and section 120-B of the IPC.2. Allegation of Bribery and Corruption:The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, a Founder Trustee of a University, was involved in a bribery case where a GST Superintendent demanded a bribe of Rs. 10 lakh from the University's CFO and GST Consultant to settle GST issues. It was claimed that the petitioner directed the Senior Finance Manager to handle the matter, implicating him in the bribery scheme.3. Involvement of Petitioner in GST Audit Issues:The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the University, especially in GST matters, as he was abroad since October 2020. The counsel emphasized that the petitioner had no knowledge of the GST audit and that the CFO and other officials were responsible for financial matters. The petitioner had left the country for professional engagements and had requested virtual interrogation, which was denied.4. Prosecution's Evidence and Arguments:The Special Public Prosecutor for CBI argued that the petitioner was directly involved in the bribery case, citing the presence of the Senior Finance Manager at the spot with the bribe money and the petitioner's telephonic conversation with him. The prosecution submitted statements from the CEO and CFO of the University indicating the petitioner's involvement and argued that granting anticipatory bail could hinder the investigation.5. Petitioner's Defense and Arguments:The petitioner's counsel contended that the allegations were baseless and aimed at defaming the petitioner and the University. It was argued that the CFO and other officials were trying to divert attention from their own misdeeds of defalcation. The petitioner had consistently shown willingness to cooperate with the investigation upon his return to the country and had no role in the alleged bribery.6. Court's Consideration and Decision:The court considered the legislative intent behind Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to protect individual liberty while balancing societal interests. It referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State Of Maharashtra And Ors. The court noted the petitioner's absence from the country since October 2020, his willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and the lack of direct evidence implicating him. The court directed that in the event of the petitioner's arrest, he should be released on bail with conditions to ensure his cooperation with the investigation and prevent any tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.Conclusion:The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, directing his release on bail upon arrest with specific conditions to ensure his cooperation with the investigation. The ABLAPL was disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
